Bad Girls

Ever have a fever with night sweats in combination of nightmares? This would be the definition of this film. A low budget movie fueled by drugs and equally cringe worthy acting. Hard pass on this one...

Another example of family and friends that writes the reviews to rate the film up. First of all the three leading actresses are all horrible at acting which of course makes it one of those movies hard to even watch through. I did it to give it a fair shot but it didn´t get any better and as stated above, such poor acting can´t save any movie. The only good thing is that the girls seems to have a fun time doing the movie. Good for them that they enjoyed it because i bet it will be a long time until they get casted again.

Christopher Bickel's second feature builds on what he learned from his directorial debut, The Theta Girl, to create a modern-day grindhouse classic that owes more to that genre than its more existential predecessor. In doing so, it has its own strengths and weaknesses, but is no less impressive an effort.

Working once again on a shoestring budget ("the cost of a used car," as Bickel often puts it), Bickel takes us on a 90-minute drug-fueled journey with three ex-con strippers hellbent on carving out a dream existence for themselves while laying nightmare waste to all standing in their way. Plot and character exposition are given minimal service in favor of machine-gun visuals, notable quotables, and buckets of blood and guts.

The film moves along at a fast pace with little drag, and there's solid acting throughout, even if the characters and characterizations tend toward the one-dimensional. And kudos for the repurposing of an old-school roadside attraction as "Mexico."

The Theta Girl, Part II, this isn't, which is admirable in itself. In not playing it safe (and in taking an active role in co-writing this film, along with Shane Silman), Bickel has paid full-throated homage to his grindhouse influences that were only hinted at in his first film. That may have its drawbacks in terms of story and narrative, but Bad Girls is a much faster-paced and ultimately more engaging cinematic experience as a viewer. Between the two films, though, it's clear Bickel still has more to offer if he can put it all together in his next film.

Full disclosure: I've known Bickel for 20 years and I had a "blink and you'll miss it" bit as an extra in Bad Girls.

One of the strangest genres of films to review -- or even watch! -- are the so-called "grindhouse" knockoffs where the film-maker deliberately set out to recreate the sort of films you would have found in the early 70s playing at theatres where a double or triple bill (of similar films of course) was the norm, and often the most exciting part of the experience was wondering if you would survive the trip to the restroom and back. Here is the paradox. If the film-maker (Bickel in this case) fails, then the film is flawed. But if the film-maker succeeds at essentially creating a loud, raw, and massively imperfect film -- does that deserve praise??? Several reviewers here seem to have thought YES, and rated this film on par with Matrix and Avengers and Godfather. Not this reviewer, however. Like most things today, a matter of personal choice.

I heard that this was one of those super-low-budget movies you need to watch, and the movie reviewer over at ArsTechnica rarely steers me wrong, but I still spun up the shiny disc this evening with my expectation bar set very low. As if.

I loved this movie. Sure, it's uneven here and there as you would expect from an indie flick with a capital INDIE, but it does a hell of a lot with so very little.

It's got some great cars, great lines, guns, lots of action, a raspy soundtrack that works well, characters that I would have never guessed at the start that I would come to identify with by the end, and some of the most inventive trippy drug scenes ever.

If this doesn't turn into a bona fide cult flick then there is no justice in the universe. Find a copy. Watch it. And tell your friends.